[arin-discuss] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois

[Joe Maimon]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
>>Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 7:23 AM
>>To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>>Subject: [arin-discuss] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois
>>
>>
>>Hey all,
>>
>>Is there any overriding reason to limit ARIN swip to /29 or bigger?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Back when that limit was setup, few were assigning a /32 or /30 to
>corporations, single IP number assignments invariably were to
>residential end users.  Often, to dialup users.  As a result it
>seemed logical to make a tradeoff between number of total entries
>in the SWIP database with the speed of searching them, and the need
>to provide information to the community.
>
>  
>
I dont really see the tradeoff.

>Assignment of less than /29 these days is really prompted by IPv4
>conservation efforts.
>  
>
Or by actual use. In either case, you have made the point that SWIP does 
not fit current needs and use by limiting to /29.

>IPv6 does not have such restrictions, so it would really be meaningless
>to allow single IP number SWIPs for IPv6.
>  
>
There are no /128 assignments? Of course there are.

>ARIN has an alternative to it's whois server - allowing the 
>so-called "local numbering authority" (ie: the ISP) the ability
>to run their own rwhois server in lieu of filing SWIPS.  That is
>what we do, for example.  You can put single IP assignments in
>that, if you want, we do.
>  
>
How does this justify limiting SWIP to /29? If the concern is database 
object counts, limit swip assignments per allocation, regardless of size.

That actually makes sense: "you are too big, run your own rwhois server".

>My belief is that we should be concentrating on making good policy
>for IPv6, and forget about IPv4.  It's going to be gone soon anyway.
>
It wont be "gone". It may soon be the case that new networks will find 
adopting ipv6 to be worth the effort. But ipv4 wont be gone for many 
years yet.

In either event, this does not really have any bearing on the SWIP /29 
limit.

>Since you have an alternative that allows you to list /32's in
>rwhois, I suggest you use it, rather than trying to get the rest of
>the world to change.
>  
>
I can use rwhois, which requires some effort (which I have done in the 
past) and hosting a server, or I can creatively combine entries into /29 
swip entries. Which I also do.

Or I can inquire as to the logic of the limit and whether it is at all 
applicable currently and what could be done to change it. Which I have done.

Furthermore, conceivably the changes can be a small as two ASCII 
characters in one program on one server. While the total changes are 
likely much higher, its hardly the world.

>Ted
>
>
>  
>